Limit team $

[akoscielski3]

No.

This is just like attempting to cap the amount of regional a team can participate in each year, because other people are jealous of them.

I think we would all agree that FIRST is trying to make FRC similar to how a business is run. There are large rich billion dollar companies, and then there are small companies who can barely break even some years. FRC is the same way. We have the elite teams that have become successful, earned a lot of money and who people look up to for inspiration. This would be like those teams that make a $100 000 a year. then we have the small teams who can barely get to one regional, make their robot out of scrap material and aren't as elite or inspirational, but these are the teams that look up to the elite teams.

If FIRST was to limit your budget, then why don't governments tell Apple or Samsung that they can't spend/make any more money then $50 000 a year. Because then you aren't striving to be the best, because there is no "best".

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

No.

This would be like those teams that make a $100 000 a year. then we have the small teams who can barely get to one regional, make their robot out of scrap material and aren't as elite or inspirational, but these are the teams that look up to the elite teams.

I have to disagree... it is precisely those small teams that are the most inspirational to me....

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I have to disagree... it is precisely those small teams that are the most inspirational to me....

I visited a team in a rural and extremely small town this year. The team and the community came together to raise over $16,000 in a time frame of less than two weeks before championships.

This is in an area without large industry presence nearby and whose student population is over 80% on free and reduced lunch.

If a second year team and it's community can pull off $16,000 in less than two weeks. I can assure you even if you are in a rural setting and work hard ALL year, you can operate at a desirable budget for your team...


I am so proud of these guys. <3

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I have to disagree... it is precisely those small teams that are the most inspirational to me....

When I look at the rankings and see a team ranked highly that I don't know much about, and I head down to the pits to check out their robot and see a kitbot with a decidedly inexpensive looking manipulator, that's FIRST for me. Because those kids and their mentor(s) didn't have a lot of resources, but they survived build season and managed to create a winning machine. When I see this robot on the field and it scores or plays defense or whatever it does and does it well, I realize how much more that means when you consider how much it took just to get it on the field. And if it beats one of these shiny machines from a team like 118 or 254 or 67, that inspires me just as much as the shiny robots do.

[jp1247]

Wow teams actually raise that much? Since 2004 our team has run off of < $1000 a year in fundraising/donations (believe me we've tried our best), there's just no interest in the community, and we only have 1 smallish corporate sponsor. Everything we've had or used has been private donations by 2 or 3 mentors...

So I can see where this question is coming from, but I agree, it doesnt make sense to limit how much a team can raise.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

I have to disagree... it is precisely those small teams that are the most inspirational to me....

Let's hear it for the Brave Little Toasters!

[josmee443]

Not quite sure if this is such a good idea. I think the process of finding sponsorships is a big part of running a robotics team. Learning to communicate and work in a partnership with major corporations is a very good skill that will definitely be useful later in life, especially after college. The financial aspect that comes with running a team is another responsibility that prepares us for what real life has to offer.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Your robot can cost $4000. That "levels" the playing field. Yes, "better off" teams can afford to do multiple regionals but that's about the only competitive advantage you can buy. Practice bots cost a lot less than you'd think once you have a back log of parts. So, where exactly, do you think this 50k budget goes? In a lot of cases it goes to subsidizing student/mentor travel and paying for outreach. Let's walk through why this is a terrible idea.

(for the record 79 doesn't have a budget anywhere near this, our students/mentors are not subsidized by the team. It's a thought exercise based on our team size and approximated costs. )

We have ~70 students on the team. Our per student cost to Orlando was $400. That's 28k right there. Our KoP was 6k (34k) and we could spend ~4k on the bot (38k). Now for our second regional (@5k I'm at 43k): To DC was $800 a student. I could send less than 10 students. Which leaves 0 money left over for Champs. How did any of this help inspire my kids? And don't say I should send less kids, that limits inspiration.

So, this is a terrible idea.

[Andrew Remmers]

I'm going to politely say no this is a bad idea. Here is why.

When I first started I was on one of these "insane budget teams" but the budget that was raised each year, we produced very competitive robots, but I was always jealous of other "bigger budget teams" in our area. Now the budget on my team was mostly student raised, and I say mostly because we did get help from mentors on how to properly set up presentations for formal sponsor meetings and so on so fourth. The students made all the money that went into that team, some sponsors even came from personal friends of mine.

Nonetheless what I am trying to say, instead of hating your giant budget team do what I did instead. Use them as an inspiration, and try to surpass them. Yeah, might be a long hard road but this is FIRST it wouldn't be fun without that challenge. I've been trying to surpass a couple teams through their inspirations I find it a friendly competition. Even more so to the point of through their inspirations I got Second Place in the world 2 weeks ago at the VEXU competition.

My point is, don't be so down about how teams set their own standards to operate. There are lots of kids who work really hard to get to where they are today.

Just my .02 cents

- Andrew

[Jon Stratis]

The intent here certainly seems good on the surface - to level the playing field so all teams have an equal chance at winning. Setting a budget cap for a team isn't the right way to go about it, though.

What makes good teams good isn't a question of money or resources. It's one of time, commitment, and hard work. Good teams are good because they spend the time in the offseason training and learning. They work hard during the season to finish a robot early, get it programmed, and drive it around, while working on a second robot so they have something to practice with after the bag day. Yes, money can help (you have to pay for the parts on the second robot, after all), but throwing more money at most teams won't magically result in a practice robot - they just don't have the extra time to build one.

In addition, every team is going to have different costs. How do you account for teams that have a regional close by, versus those that have to travel? What about teams that have to rent a build space, versus those that get one provided by the school for free? How do you equalize between teams that have a huge shop to work in, versus those that put everything away in a closet each night?

It's almost a cliche at this point, but this is a robotics competition that isn't really about the robot. It's about inspiring kids to go into science and technology fields. Inspiration can happen many, many different ways, and very little of it has to do with money. A student can be inspired by winning a competition, sure. They can also be inspired by seeing what other students built. Or by working side by side with a professional engineer and earning their respect. They could be inspired by using a small budget to build something wonderful.

But maybe we could slightly alter the topic... Can we use GP to encourage all teams to share funds and equipment a little more liberally, to help pull up those teams that are struggling? How often has a team gone out to fundraise... for another team? How often have you approached your corporate sponsors and asked them to sponsor another team because they need it more than you do?

Towards that end, I have two items to share from the past year. First, one of our students arranged for Best Buy to sponsor ourselves... and 3 other teams. Second, we moved out of our old build space a few weeks ago (which was owned and offered cheaply by one of our sponsors), and we're looking for another team to move in there and receive that sponsorship instead.